Conclusions and Story

Lab 5

Seth Leonard

Geography 491

11/14/08

Conclusions and Story

The analysis of this data has shown that guava is indeed an invasive plant. It always threatens to take back whatever land has been cleared by farmers. The farms in our study area are merely remnants of several farms. The quality of land needed farms is very conducive to the grown of any plants, not just those intended by the agriculturalists. This means that a species can quickly take over when it is as irrootable as guava.

What can be ascertained is that many farms and their owners have been squeezed out of business. Farmers must revert to either fishing or catering to tourists in order to recoup their lost income and food stuffs. The blanketing nature of this plant is visible all throughout the region. Roads, which are typically buffered by cleared area, here barely remain in place and are encased by guava plants. Farms which remain in place are often surrounded by the plant and continually face the threat of more expansion.

A feedback here is this: As more farmers abandon their plots, more guava will ultimately invade those areas. Only the most profitable and already clear farms will be able to continue until the entire region, both inside and outside the farm borders, will be overrun with guava.

Clearing this land will take huge amounts of money and labor. Without a clear plan and possibly some newer technologies or techniques, it may be impossible to uproot and destroy all of the guava necessary and return the area to agricultural profitability. The governing body of the Galapagos does not have the resources necessary, so it seems likely that evolution will continue and this invasive species will cover less-tended parts of the islands much like kudzu carpets parts of the Southeastern United States.

1. What relationships exist between farm characteristics (in the attribute table) and the percent

guava by farm?

Examination shows that farms with the ‘fishing’ value in their other column have a very high likelihood of being abandoned. In an inland farm with major forestation, it seems unlikely that fishing would be a large or profitable endeavor. Based on how the survey was conducted, there is a chance that those responding to the survey listed fishing as their primary source of revenue. This would indicate that their land holdings had become so overgrown that they were no longer workable and fishing became a stop-gap measure to financial loss.

What is also evident is that larger farms, with the exception of the largest (#4), are far more likely to be overgrown to the point of abandonment. What we infer here is that larger land holdings incur more expenses (tax, upkeep, etc.) and therefore a lack of labor and capital exists to keep these larger farms clear to the point of profitability/sustainability. It is likely that a small-farm business model would be more efficient in this region until a guava control method is introduced.

2. What, if any, proximity relationships exist between percent guava by field and (a) roads and (b)buildings?

After examining the data, it is evident that there is sometimes, but not always, a correlation between road proximity and guava coverage at a farm. Some farms (9,10,11,12) are bordered by a road and have relatively insignificant proportions of guava invasion. However when we look at farms 2 and 3 we see far more guava despite good road access. Farm 14 is bordered on one side by a road, however it is choked with around 90% guava coverage.

Buildings, on the other hand, have a high incidence of clear land in their proximity. Farm areas with the most buildings typically have the most cleared land. If buildings can be equated to population, then it would suffice to say that areas with the most people have the highest probability of having cleared land.

3. Assign each farm a category of “abandoned,” “partially abandoned,” or “active” based on percentguava present and the farm characteristics in the attribute table. Are fields or farms next to abandoned fields/farms more likely to contain a higher percentage of guava?

Farm Status

The following list is a summary of each farm’s apparent status. Active means that the area is used for substantial agricultural gains. Partially abandoned means that it is likely the farm will soon succumb to guava invasion. Finally, abandoned indicates that the farm is no longer in use due to an overgrowth of the guava species.

G=Guava Coverage/Invasion

1: PartiallyAbandoned-G>50%

2: PartiallyAbandoned-G>50%

3: Active-G<50% and significant productive activity

4: Active-G<50% and large cleared areas

5: Abandoned-G>50% and little besides minor pastoral activities

6: Abandoned-G>50% and only minor crop cultivation/no buildings

7: Active-Guava coverage significant, however substantial production remains in place

8:Partially or soon-to-be Abandoned-G>75% and only minimal activities remain

9:Active-G<50%

10:Partially Abandoned-G>50% and only minor crop cultivation

11:Active-G<50% and significant activity & cleared land

12:Active-G<50% and significant activity & cleared land

13:Active-G<50% and major activity

14:Abandoned-G=nearly complete coverage, zero activity remains

15:Active-G<50% and significant activity

16:Abandoned-G>75% and almost zero activity remains

4. Is there spatial clustering of guava in the agricultural zone or in individual fields, and does this spatial clustering provide clues to land use practices that could affect guava distribution?

(Hint: You could explore using the Spatial Statistics tools in the Toolbox to answer this

question.)

Guava clustering occurs in certain fields. It may be more correct to say that guava is contained in some fields. An example is field 23, which is bordered on three sides by relatively cleared area. It looks as though there has been an attempt to ‘push back’ the guava and farms which are completely overtaken are left to sit while clearable farmland was re-cleared or protected. This raises a hypothesis that labor and capital are in relatively short supply, certainly not in the amounts required to eradicate the stubborn guava. Reinforcing the idea that the small-farm model is becoming dominant, we see that farmers find it more profitable to keep smaller plots of productive land cleared, as opposed to taking on a much greater task in protecting a larger swath of land.

Is there a relationship between guava in the Park and distance to the agricultural zone?

There is no apparent relationship between the distance from guava in the park to the actual fields. The cleared farmland is bordered, at times heavily, by guava. Even on the southern border where a road passes there is copious guava growth. This does not mean that the entire border of the field area is populated with thick guava; however there does not seem to be a clear border to the farm area at all points. This speaks to the resilient and invasive nature of the plant. It appears as though farms are cut out of the dense groves, when in reality they were overtaken by said groves.

2. Is there a relationship between guava distribution in the Park and percent guava in fields

bordering the park?(Hint: Look for a tool to allocate guava pixels in the park to the nearest field in theagricultural zone. Using this tool and other steps, you can derive a layer that will help you

compare number of guava pixels in those fields to the number of park guava pixels allocated

to the fields.)

There is not necessarily propensity for relatively cleared fields to border areas less populated with guava. Some of the already recognized small, productive fields on the eastern side of the study area are attached to more cleared space, which is likely more farm area (however it is unimportant).

Something of interest is that there seems to be no pattern of momentum for land clearance. In some scenarios, land is cleared multiple areas, however certain areas are more conducive to it. In the study area, we see that guava prevents this natural flow of labor and ultimately slows or stymies the readying of arable land.

Something else of note is the fact that the farms in our study are arguably the best arable land. This means that an invasive plant species will flourish there. This could partially explain the fact that there is no disruption of flow between much of the farm area and the surrounding park, and it could also explain why some of the most-dense groves are located inside the farm borders.

3. How about between guava distribution in the park and characteristics of farms bordering the

Park?

On the developed Eastern side we see that there is more cleared area bordering the farms. It is not safe to assume that other cleared farms should have less guava border-coverage. This is because in the north farm 4(farmID 3) is quite productive but is bordered by thick guava. The farms to its immediate East and West are not active and are also bordered by much guava. Farmers who do not own a certain piece of land will certainly not cover the expense required to clear that land. What land that is cleared near borders is typically due to topology issues. For example, the lake in the Southeastern area prevents guava growth around an active farm, whereas to the south there is little or no water and guava is free to encroach and surround.

Conclusions and Story